diffida and damage request for craccato sofware

[Giesse_91]

hello to everyone, recently to a cro friend and colleague, arrived half a pect a distrust from a well-known law firm, to use a sofware craccato (matter architecture, but not autodesk).
in the pect in addition to the distrust of use an astronomical compensation is required; there is a report with the date and time of violation found and the name of the software; only two accesses are tracked and reported.
according to me with all probability, downloading the original trial version on the pc, they had access to the same and also took the data, and opening a generated file with a craccata version installed on another pc, are also relasilit to the other pc.
Does anyone have experience in a case like this? Do you have to take a lawyer?
pcs are not registered to anyone and for other user was interested in buying the license!

 

[ragnol]

What does it mean that pcs are not in the name of anyone?

However let him read discussions that there were for similar posts on the forum.

but first, tell him to hear a lawyer, perhaps a little competent in the matter, because the opinion of "ragnol" remains an opinion, more based on what you write and/or understand (see the speech: the pcs are not registered to anyone). the *note* law firm (taormina, bernardini, Russian????) proves us, then there is a world to consider.

If he wanted to buy the license... he took too long. :

 

[Tristan]

opening a generated file with a craccata version installed on another pc

I don't understand that files contain license info, but the concept is probably that. is a bit like total evaders (difficult to be caught because they are completely alien to the fisco) and partial evaders (which are more easily found because they are already "scheduled"). when they installed the official trial, they provided the necessary info (including ip and mac address of machines) that allowed developers to cross data and discover fraudulent use.
in this case it is best to find an agreement through a trusted lawyer.

 

[TETRASTORE]

find a case similar to yours previous discussion.
If the evidence in the pec is what you described, it is not enough for the softwarehouse to start legal action. proof is not a file that your friend may have received from anyone but possession of the incriminated software in his computer.
it would be necessary to prove that your friend actually has an illegal copy of the software installed on a hard disk of his computers, this obviously on confirmation of the gdf that has carried out an inspection in his home by order of a magistrate.
Moreover, if they find the software, to claim such high compensations should prove that your friend has made it by achieving substantial gains.
you still ask a lawyer, but the question to ask him is as follows: "What can the legal party do if you can't prove the presence of that illegal software on my pc?"

remains always the ethical part in these cases: you should not use illegal software.

 

[Tristan]

the software house try us because often those who are caught with the hands in the jam have the conscience dirty, but it can also be that in fact the use has been sporadic and not for profit on a private pc that "by chance" was connected to the company network. Usually in these cases you agree to buy one (or more than one according to the tests provided by the counterparty) license with maintenance and all are happy (or almost). But the lawyer needs, otherwise it's like getting rid of the sharks